BALDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is a very unfortunate case where respondent No. 3 has misadventured into expressing almost a conclusive opinion about an allegation against the petitioner in the course of the proceedings of an election petition, even while admittedly the election petition is at a very initial stage and the petitioner herein has not so far been afforded the opportunity of contesting the allegations leveled against him by respondent No. 4 in the said election petition. Equally unfortunate is the conduct of respondent No. 2 who without bothering to consider the well established requirements of fair play, equity and good conscience almost summarily dismissed the transfer application of the petitioner.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 4 filed an election petition against the petitioner under Section 162 read with Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 on the sole ground of the petitioner being an alleged encroacher upon Government land. Section 167 of this Act clearly stipulates that, subject to the provision of the Act as well as the Rules made thereunder, every election petition shall be tried in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure for the trial of the suits, even though it also clearly states and stipulates that every election petition has to be decided within a period of six months from the date of its presentation. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, there is a set procedure prescribed for trial of suits which includes the stage of completion of pleadings, framing of issues and the leading of evidence by the parties concerned.

(3.) WHEN , the petitioner invoked Section 166 of the Act for seeking transfer of the election petition, the respondent No. 2 did not appreciate the aforesaid aspects and almost summarily rejected the application for transfer of the petitioner. We do not approve this conduct on the part of respondent No. 2 as well.